Ritual humiliation ceremonies

Published 4:00 am, Thursday, May 13, 2010

And so begins one of the most disgusting spectacles in Washington: the hearings into the suitability of a newly nominated Supreme Court justice. It should be, it could be, a teachable moment about the various strands of current legal thinking, but instead it's a blood sport mixed with generous doses of pomposity and evasiveness. No one comes out looking good, and the cynicism about Washington grows deeper.

Here's the drill:

President announces his nominee for the Supreme Court. Senators and representatives, many of whom had never heard of the nominee two days ago, immediately start criticizing her or praising her based on a talking-points memo that their respective parties sent out within 12 hours of the announcement.

(President Obama made it easy for the opposition by floating Elena Kagan's name so early and so much. The Republicans were ready to dish the dirt they had found, although it's been pretty darned clean dirt so far.)

Some of these senators announce that they will vote for or against the nominee, based on essentially nothing, but that they welcome the forthcoming hearings as a chance for a "free and open exchange of opinions." They know, we all know, that the hearings will be nothing like that; the hearings will instead be a ritual of humiliation. Senators will engage in ad hoc ad hominem attacks because they can, basically, and it makes them feel good to patronize someone who is clearly smarter than they.

George R.R. Martin Says "Game of Thrones" Spinoff Could Arrive by 2019Wochit

John Boyega Releases Poster for "Pacific Rim: Uprising"Wochit

7 celebrity pairs that could be relatedWibbitz

'Family Matters' home is going to be demolishedFox5Atlanta

Many senators will see the hearings as an opportunity to reach a larger-than-usual audience and make speeches affirming their belief in judicial restraint, adherence to the original intent of the Constitution or, by contrast, a "living" Constitution, and their abhorrence of whatever they think their constituents abhor. Since there is no chance that the senators' remarks will be examined for inconsistencies, unlike the nominee's, the senators get a chance to make things up.

After the self-serving remarks come the "questions," each of which may be longer than the speech that preceded it, so there's still plenty of time to water your plants, do your dishes and wash your clothes. By hand.

Meanwhile, the nominee is sitting there rehearsing whichever one of her planned evasions most fits the question. Since the question is likely to be incoherent and/or based on one of the talking points handed around by the party officials, this act of self-control takes patience more than anything else. She has her own talking points, after all.

The nominee's talking points are, basically, "be as bland as humanly possible" and "repeat, as often as possible, that it would improper for you to discuss anything that may come before the court." The eerie part about Kagan is that she seems to have been practicing for the Senate Judiciary hearings for all of her adult life. She apparently doesn't have any opinions, which many Democrats are saying is a good thing because there are no controversial statements to beat her over the head with.

She is instead a "consensus builder," which is swell, but there are nine justices, five of them allied with the hard right, so the majority has no need (and, clearly, no desire) to compromise with anyone about anything. Ideologues are like that; they perceive compromise as a betrayal of their principles.

Good luck to you, Kagan.

Anyway, back to the hearings. We're now later in the process, after the nominee has said about 20 times, "I believe I answered that when I spoke with your colleague Sen. Jeffries, but I hope I can make my view clearer ..." (wash, rinse, repeat).

About then, the senators up for re-election next year will realize that they haven't thrown enough red meat to their bases. So, the third time around, they come out snarling, purporting to find "troubling inconsistencies" between her testimony and her membership in some campus organization people had hardly ever heard of until then. They say it as if they're dropping a bombshell, although they're not, since someone at Salon got that scoop six weeks ago, and it turned out to be nothing.

But the folks at home don't know that. Snarl, little senator, snarl.

Finally, the bearbaiting ends, and Elena Kagan can go on to be the next Supreme Court justice, and we finally might get to hear what she thinks about things. Barring the always-unforeseeable unforeseen, she's gonna pass the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate with relative ease, as both Republicans and Democrats shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, might be OK."

And that's how people get chosen for a lifetime post in one of the highest bodies in the land.

With all respect, Senator, I have no opinion about my perceived lack of opinions.

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.